The Second Amendment has generally not been construed by courts as guaranteeing an individual right; however, it also has generally not been construed as banning an individual right. Here's the problem: it is ultimately, no matter what anyone on either side tells you, a cultural debate. In our federalist system, local variation in culture produces different laws in different states. People in rural, ethnically homogeneous areas where there is little crime usually have no problem with guns. They tend to support very permissive gun laws. Those who live in urban, ethnically diverse areas where there is considerable crime usually think guns are the great Satan of urban society. They tend to support very restrictive gun laws.

The problem with all of this is: guns know no boundaries, and it is easy for guns purchased in areas with laissez-faire gun laws to make their ways into places like Washington, D.C., whether or not it enacts super-restrictive gun legislation. Further, as dotlyn points out, there is some evidence that indicates that encouraging gun ownership may actually reduce overall crime, but I don't think anyone has tried this policy in an urban, high-crime area. Finding a happy medium for gun laws at the federal level is really the only solution, but we all know how difficult it is for that to happen, and we also know that the Supreme Court sometimes punts on these sorts of controversial issues, speaking to the specific case while leaving the overall debate resolved.

dotlyn and jason's angry disagreement is testament to the incredible polarization this issues inspires...

EDIT: The ultimate cause of urban crime, of course, has very little to do with the existence of guns. Were we to address the roots of that problem in a real way, the gun issue would likely not be such a big deal.